A qualitative study investigating research priorities and investigative capacity in sports-focused chiropractic research, part 1 - identifying research priorities to inform a Delphi study.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To identify sports-focused research priorities to inform the development of a research agenda for sports chiropractors. METHODS: A qualitative description study was conducted using semi-structured interviews with 20 sports chiropractic researchers from 8 different countries and focus group interviews with 12 sports chiropractic leaders from Canada. RESULTS: 150 research priorities were identified, and three main themes emerged: area of research, research actions, and research methodology. Six areas of research were identified: basic science and mechanism research, clinical research, health services research, population health, specific conditions and topics in sport, and chiropractic research in sport. Collaboration in research and contributing to the broader sports research effort were two subthemes identified as research actions, and the remaining codes were related to research methodology. CONCLUSIONS: The research priorities identified can be utilized to plan future research prioritization studies to inform a research agenda for the sports chiropractic field.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.175 | 0.139 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.014 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.008 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".